Monday, September 30, 2013

Top Five Temple Predictions for October 2013 Conference

After receiving requests from readers, I have decided to post my top five temple announcement predictions for this weekend's General Conference. The Church has announced five new temples during four of the five past October General Conferences whereas the Church announced only two temples during last year's October General Conference. It is unclear whether the Church will make any temple announcements this weekend, especially considering no temple dedications have occurred since last conference and two temples were announced last April.

Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire - The LDS Church News reported earlier this year that, "Three of the five [Cote d'Ivoire] stakes are among the top 25 in the Church in the percentage of adults
who submitted family names for temple ordinances during 2012." The Church in Abidjan continues to experience rapid growth, with four of the five stakes having been organized since 2000.

Managua, Nicaragua - Nicaragua is currently the country with the most members without a temple. In 2012, LDS Apostle Elder Russell M. Nelson predicted that a temple would be built in Managua one day.

Puebla, Mexico - Puebla is currently one of the metropolitan areas in the world with the largest number of stakes without a temple. The Mexico City Mexico Temple currently has one of the largest number of stakes assigned to a temple district worldwide.

Layton, Utah - Perhaps as many as 35-40 stakes could be serviced by a temple constructed in Layton. The Ogden Utah Temple currently has one of the most stakes in a temple district in the world with 75 stakes.

Brasilia, Brazil - Missionaries and church leaders have talked for many years about the possibility of a temple being constructed in Brazil's capital city. A future temple in Brasilia would likely serve as many as 13 stakes and four districts in areas that are distant from the Campinas Brazil Temple.

For a map displaying additional locations that appear likely for temple announcements within the foreseeable future, click here.

53 comments:

With the Ogden temple still under reconstruction, that is a lot of stakes currently without their temple. I do think that the Layton area has a good possibility for a temple. The Utah North Area has only 2 temples--Ogden and Logan (Bountiful is in the Utah Central Area).

Not to take away from Nicaragua, but Virginia has more members, more stakes, and more congregations. But, alas, I choose to be positively surprised should such an announcement occur, rather than disappointed yet again when Virginia still has no announced temple. Note, Nicaragua and Honduras have exactly the same border restrictions, controls, and checks as Virginia and Maryland--none. There is free movement of people without checks among Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua (the CA-4 Agreement). It is a 2-hour drive from Richmond to the Washington DC Temple. It is a 5-hour drive from Managua to Tegulcigalpa and the Saints in Richmond would have a higher density of cars, so maybe Nicaragua deserves a temple more. Interesting, 33 stakes and 13 districts in the Tegulcigalpa temple district compared to 43 stakes in the Washington DC temple district.

I think it is likely that there will only be two temples announced and that this will be the new pattern for a while. But I also think it is a possibility that the church will delay some temple announcements and use more funds to pay for the surge in missionaries.

That being said, I made my temple predictions on the last post. They were:Managua Nicaragua (Country with the most members without a temple)Richmond Virginia (State with the most members without a temple)Auckland New Zealand (Metropolitan area with the most stakes without a temple and a prime Location next to the MTC)Pocatello Idaho (Metropolitan area in the US with the most stakes without a temple)2nd Mexico City Area (either Puebla or on the new MTC site, maybe the field and grove of trees on the east side of the campus)

I think that it is important to a temple next to an MTC, so that's why I guessed Auckland and Benemerito. But I think the Benemerito would not decrease the possibility of Puebla in the medium term. I agree with your guess of Layton, But I don't think it will happen until the 3 temples under construction in Utah are at least close to dedication.

I think these are good predictions, I wonder about another temple in northern Utah county as well. The Mt. Timpanogos District has 72 stakes and the northern part (Lehi etc.) seems to still be growing at a pretty good clip.

I can't wait for the Benemerito/MTC area to get a temple! Though I highly doubt it will happen this time around, it will happen one day or another for sure. That was my first area in my mission. It's like little Utah over in that area. The Church is really strong over there-some of the best stakes in Mexico City. There is also a prophecy that there will be a temple there one day.

That area has so much Church history and stories to tell. Back in the day that whole area/valley was the Churches until the government essentially took it over and left the Church with Benemerito. Another reason for a temple is that the whole valley/mountain is kinda tucked back in the corner and traffic is terrible there so it's quite a distance for MTC missionaries to get to the temple in Aragon.

I still visit and get updates from Mexico City often as a count of my in laws living there. My wife is Mexican. Tons of stories and experiences of missionary work to tell there in beautiful Mexico. I can also def. see Puebla and one day Queretero getting a temple especially if they can get more members into the temple and pay their tithing. It's crazy to see American sister missionaries now getting called to Mexico. I never saw that one coming.

I think there will be 3-5 temples announced. The pipeline has to stay full due to the several years of planning and government approval that goes into these things. There will be 4 dedicated next year and 6 in 2015, so one third of the announced/under construction temples will be open.

Interesting and enjoyable to read these well thought out predictions, both in the original post and the comments. I also went back and read through the several rounds of predictions. It seems like the most logical locations eventually come through, even if not the first time they are predicted; I wouldn't be surprised if all five predicted in the original post were announced within five years.

My guess is that 32 of the 78 stakes in the Provo temple district (those in the Payson, Spanish Force, Mapleton, Springville, Salem, etc., areas) will go to the Payson temple district and that 34 of the 72 stakes (in the Mount Timpanogos temple district i.e., those in the Orem, Lindon, and Pleasant Grove area) will be transferred to either the Provo or the Provo City Center temple districts.

I think the Church will wait until the other two Utah County temples are completed before building a fifth temple.

Mike, you make a good argument, and it may be a while yet before a new Utah county temple. Two things though, 1) the Provo MTC inflates numbers at the Provo temple beyond what is just seen in how many stakes are in that temple district, since they do not have separate stakes there; 2) IF they end up doing to Provo what is being finished in Ogden (not saying they will but every change that happened between those two temples started at Ogden and then happened in Provo, i.e. take out escalators, add Moroni, change color of steeple) I imagine they would start it shortly after Provo City Center is completed.

The Opinion makes a good point about the pipeline. While I am ecstatic about the increase in missionaries, new missions come with new costs and I am worried that new temple construction will slow because of that. But, you make a good point about the pipeline and the number the soon will be completed.

layjent, you right about the relationship between the Ogden and Provo temples and I might add that Ogden had ground broken first and was dedicated first. Excellent additional comparisons. 2000 missionaries at the MTC would be approximately the equivalent of a YSA stake. 4000 perhaps 2 stakes. That said, these "stakes" would have well above average temple attendance.

I have long seen Ogden and Provo as paired (just like Logan and Manti, and Bountiful and Mt. Timpanogos--each pair built at approximately the same time, to a similar design, and about the same distance north or south from Salt Lake. And the northern temple of each pair was started and finished first). With the reconstruction of Ogden along side the reconstruction of what is becoming the Provo City Center Temple, both associated with pioneer tabernacles and in the downtown areas, maybe the Provo City Center and the new Ogden temples are going to be seen as counterparts as we more into the future. But, you may be right that Provo has a similar transition in store for it. I wonder if they can take Provo off line for that much time because of the missionaries there.

The missionary surge has definitely had an impact on the money the church is spending on buildings. There is an addition to a building in KY where the church removed several of the things they were going to do to the existing building in order to move that money to the missionary department. Will be interesting to see if this will also affect temples.

I really don't see them putting a temple near the MTC in Mexico anytime soon. The Mexico City temple isn't that far and not every MTC right next to a temple, just near. The Sao Paulo MTC is a good example. More Utah temples (Layton, S. Salt Lake/N. Utah County) will come, but I don't think until they catch up on what they've started. Same thing if a remodel of the Provo were to occur.

I wouldn't predict a temple in Mindinao, Philippines (like in Cagayan De Oro or Davao) because of Muslim tensions and lack of nearby stakes. Davao is in an area that the Muslims are trying to slowly gain control of and Cagayan de Oro is right on the border. (Look at the map link I have below.) They don't send any American missionaries anywhere on the island due to it being unsafe.

Also, if you look at most of the temples in the Philippines they are located in areas that have many stakes within a short distance because few if any members have their own automobiles and bus travel is extremely slow. All temples in the Philippines have at least 10 stakes/districts within a 50 mile radius, and there isn't anywhere in Mindinao that has more than 4 within 50 miles.

There also hasn't been any new districts or stakes created in Mindinao for at least the past 5 years (that's as far back as I can do.)

With the new temple getting put up in Urdeneta and already having one in Manila, I would think it would be a few years until there is a new temple up north. There also aren't many places south of the northern island of Luzon that could facilitate a temple besides Bacolod, but a temple there would probably only service 11 stakes and 5 districts, which is tiny considering the normal temple district size in the Philippines is currently around 50.

I think Cheaspeake/Virgina Beach would be the next temple in VA. I think there will be very few stakes left to go to the DC temple if Richmond was put in their own district, so that is why I think Richmond would not have a temple announced. Another possibility would be Buena Vista, VA getting a temple and it would serve WVA as well as parts of Tenn, since there is a college there with lots of LDS members. Thoughts?

With the Philadelphia temple opening, all 10 PA stakes and 1 NJ stakes would attend this temple instead of DC. The DC temple is so large would they have enough people to have it open like they currently do or would they switch it to an appointment based temple? It would have about 30 stakes attending it.

Well, "lots" of LDS members is a relative term. There's only one YSA stake. But I know the college has been working to expand its enrollment (though it wants to retain a relatively small town atmosphere) so there will probably be more someday.

I'm not sure the pipeline of uncompleted temples really affects the probability of announcements that much. Since temple building will continue into the Millennium, it doesn't really matter if we have fifty temples not built yet when the Savior comes. But that's just my opinion and I have no idea how the Brethren view it.

As for SVU in Buena Vista, it currently has about 750 students and their long term goal is about 1200. My daughter, a senior in high school, is very interested in SVU--currently her first choice for next year. We visited it and did a campus tour. She will be back for an audition for a scholarship in November. The YSA stake is mostly for students at SVU, but also for students at VMI and Washington and Lee and also includes a YSA Ward in Roanoke. There is also a family stake in Buena Vista. I do think a temple in Buena Vista is possible.

I think the Philadelphia Temple will take 5-7 Pennsylvania stakes, 1 New Jersey stake, and 2 Delaware stakes from the Washington DC Temple. 4 Pennsylvania stakes would have an hour or more cut from the commute to the temple. 3 stakes are slightly closer to the Philadelphia Temple than the Washington DC Temple (using temple addresses and nominal locations decided by google maps in the cities the stakes are named after). 3 Pennsylvania stakes would add an hour or more to their drive to the temple if they were transferred to Philadelphia. And the Pittsburgh North Stake would still be in the Columbus Ohio Temple district.

A temple in Richmond would take in 11 to 12 stakes (Fredericksburg could go either way). The 6 stakes covered by the Washington DC South Mission, the Woodbridge Stake and the Winchester Stake would clearly go to the Washington DC Temple. So 8-9 stakes would remain in the DC district and 11-12 would be in the Richmond district.

If instead a temple were put in Chesapeake, it would have 6 stakes in its district. The Waynesboro stake would probably remain in the DC Temple district because it would be a little closer (including the main area of the stake in Charlottesville). Fredericksburg would be a lot closer to DC. So, in this case a new temple would be built for 6 stakes and 14 including a few (Fredericksburg, Centreville, Ashburn) that are getting close to splitting remaining in the DC district. Either way, I don't see a North Carolina stake being in either a Richmond or a Chesapeake temple district, simply because of distance compared to Apex.

Buena Vista would likely be a very small temple if announced. 5 stakes would probably be in its district (including Waynesboro) and none of the West Virginia stakes would be closer to Buena Vista than the temples they currently go to and neither would the Kingsport Tennessee Stake (which includes several Virginia congregations).

So, possible because of the LDS-based university that was recently regionally accredited and is playing in the NCAA (Division III) for the first time this year. I am hoping to watch the Knights basketball when they play at Mary Washington in Frederickburg this year.

I don't see a temple in Buena Vista. There are too few people that it would service and we don't build a temple for every pocket of LDS students. If we did, we would have a temple in Price first for the ~2300 students at the College of Eastern Utah and the other stakes in the area.

I think Nicaragua is long overdue for a temple. They have to travel long distances and many members have to make significant sacrifices to be able to attend the temple. I would love to see a temple in Cote d'Ivoire but I think the next temple in Africa will be in Zimbabwe. The church has been there longer and is well established with many members.

I think it's the same reason they are skipping every fifth session or so at Bountiful -- because the film is longer, so the first in the rotation of rooms isn't free in time to comfortably start a session the next time the rotation is supposed to start.

You can look at all the schedules here: http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/schedules/So far I have only seen Jordan River, Bountiful, and Mount Timpanogos have changes. Jordan river now has sessions every 30 minutes instead of every 20 minutes. Bountiful and Mount Timpanogos used to run at a session every 30 minutes and now have a more confusing schedule. This confuses me slightly because Provo is still running at a session every 20 minutes. They both have 6 ordinance rooms, so I don't know why one had to change its schedule and not the other. I think this change might increase the possibility a of fifth temple in both Utah and Salt Lake valleys. If not his conference, I guess within the next 2 years.

We have reduced a little bit the number of sessions in the Washington DC Temple because of the longer new presentation. It is simply a matter of timing. More time was needed to fully accommodate several languages.

So, yes, the new presentation reduces temple capacity some.

I still think Mount Timpanogos will get a lot of relief when probably 34 stakes move to the Provo temples when the Payson Temple picks up about 32 stakes from Provo. But, faithfulness in attending temples is a criteria used by the Church for temples and one that we often can only guess at here.

I wanted to clarify my comments about a Buena Vista Temple. I think it possible, but I think a temple in Richmond is most likely for Virginia's first temple.

Buena Vista makes sense if the Church wants to:

(!) site a temple in Virginia, the state with the largest LDS population, most stakes, and most congregations without at least an announced temple.

(2) wants to minimize the impact on Washington DC, only 5 stakes would be served by such a temple, 5 stakes a long way from the DC temple.

(3) wants to put a temple in Virginia as cheaper as possible. My guess is a temple in Richmond would be quite a bit larger and on in or near Chesapeake would be even larger.

(4) wants to have a temple within walking distance for an essentially all LDS university (all four Church owned colleges and universities are within walking distances of temples.

(5) land might be available on the SVU campus--less than half is developed.

Of course, I doubt these would be the main criteria for a temple.

One region in Virginia that I doubt very much will get a temple in the near term is also the part with the highest LDS population in the state--that of the Virginia DC suburbs. A temple in Fairfax county would take all of Virginia's stakes from Washington DC.

So, I think Richmond is most likely, Buena Vista would be a possibility instead, Chesapeake perhaps, and Northern Virginia probably not in my lifetime. But, the Lord is in charge and not me.

Some good points about VA, not sure I can see Richmond or Buena Vista this conference....but who knows. As far as NoVa and not in your lifetime, my guess is 20 years ago you wouldn't have thought there would be nearing 175 (operating/construction/announced) at this point.

While not related to the topic at hand, I wouldn't be surprised to see DC closed for a renovation at some point around the Philly temple opening. A good majority of the temples built in that era have gone through a renovation and a rededication.

ldschurchtemples.com just posted that the Mexico City temple will close for extensive renovation. Perhaps instead of a new temple being built in Benemerito, the existing temple will be expanded to accommodate all of Mexico City's new MTC missionaries.

I do find it strange also for closing it now as they just closed it just 5 years ago for 18 months to renovate it.

From lds.org, "In March 2007, the México City México Temple was closed for a year-and-a-half renovation and remodeling project, which included seismic enhancements, replacement of the precast concrete exterior panels, refurbishment of the angel Moroni statue, revamping of the landscaping, and remodeling of the baptistry, main lobby, corridors, sealing rooms, and ordinance rooms.

By its 25th anniversary, the México City México Temple had dropped at least eight feet in elevation due to the rapid subsidence of Mexico's capital city."

" I wouldn't be surprised to see DC closed for a renovation at some point around the Philly temple opening. A good majority of the temples built in that era have gone through a renovation and a rededication."

That would explain why they're building a nice big parking garage below the Philadelphia temple even though it's three blocks from a regional rail station. I think renovating Washington would have to wait until there's another temple or two in the other direction. It does need it though - for starters, the elevators don't reach the baptistry area.

Here in Mexico, the buzz has been that if a second temple is to be built in Mexico City, it will be in the southern portion of the city (Tlalpan or maybe Coyoacan where the National University is).

But there has been virtually NO temple attendence from Mexico city stakes.

Puebla would have had a temple as early as five or even ten years ago, but that would have meant that there would be no temple attendence in Mexico City.

But now things are improving quite a bit. There have been more people from the periphery (especially from Queretaro, Hidalgo and Morelos states, in addition to Puebla and Tlaxcala), but still attendence from the city is still way down.

If a temple is called in Mexico, it will be on the northern periphery (Puebla-Pachuca-Queretaro) and I lean more towards Puebla (for the number of stakes) and Queretaro (not as many stakes but with easy road links to many areas with a comparable number of stakes as a whole to Puebla that would benefit from a temple there).

Then I would think a southern periphery temple would be built in Cuernavaca or in Tlalpan, but it won't be immediate, but a few years down the road (after the rededication of the Mexico City temple in 2015 or 2016).

Other places in Mexico that could use a temple in the medium term would be either Torreón or Culiacán for their number of stakes and distance to Hermosillo, Monterrey, and Guadalajara.

John, I wish it were easier to get to the Washington DC Temple by metro. There is a volunteer shuttle from a metro stop. But, a temple so close to public transit should make the Philadelphia Temple accessible.

I think Manukau (which is where the MTC is in Auckland) is primed for an announcement soon. Consent was granted when the Stake Centre and MTC were approved in 2006. I have seen the plans and had a good view of the construction site from a nearby office tower. The site has been graded and prepared for the temple already. The nearby area has two new stakes organised this year. All we need is an announcement.

Christchurch and Wellington have been thrown around recently, not sure though. The distances and costs for those two cities are high for Hamilton. I do think that they will be further into the future.

I think that Papua New Guinea needs a temple for obvious geographic and now apparent demographic reasons, meaning there appears to be many members there.Singapore seems a great temple spot, especially with all the growth in Malaysia. India would be wonderful, too. In the US, temple growth is necessary but secondary in comparison to the need of active temples in the above mentioned spots. However, we know that sustainment by the local membership is key as well.

My wife and I went to the Toronto Temple this last summer and I was told that they are supported by only 8 stakes. There was a sister of Finnish ancestry that needed us, random visitors, to get many of her deceased family sealed that week day afternoon. She explained that she had been there previously and could not do the vicarious work due to the lack of participants. Smaller temples do take away from the participants at the bigger ones like Washington DC, but hopefully church growth will continue to go on locally in the DC area, with a large temple, and other such big temple areas.

With no border restrictions between Nicaragua and Honduras, I would expect a temple announced for Nicaragua no sooner than in 2 years. Especially after what happened in Aba Nigeria with having to close down the temple when they had to remove foreign temple works, I think Church leaders want to be sure of enough local temple workers to run the temple. Plus, Tegucigalpa is the newest temple, so it may take a bit to assess the need. A temple in Nicargagua would be nice, but it would seem that Brasilia may be a more pressing need.

The DC/Tegucigalpa comparison seems to be pre-Philadephia being built. Also, the DC temple is much bigger than Tegucigalpa.

Someone suggested that "the pipeline has to stay full". On the other hand, President Hinckley showed you can actually get a lot of approvals before publicly announcing the temple. So that may be why they are holding off.

Another issue is there are lots of costs to starting up new missions, so maybe they decided to hold off on additional temple costs this year.

I do not expect to see a new temple announced for Utah county until at earliest Spring of 2015. Starting in fall of 2014 we will start to see the return of a wave of sisters who served younger as missionaries to going to BYU. Once that happens they will be able to assess the overall changes that might necessitate.

Of course, maybe to some extent Provo City Center will help with a more temple going BYU student body. Maybe the issue for Lehi getting a temple is continued growth of Lehi, Saratoga Spring and Eagle Mountain. We shall see.

Stakes and Districts Discontinued in 2018

About Me

My interest in researching the growth of the LDS Church began in 2002. I began this blog in late 2007 to provide a forum to discuss LDS growth developments and share information. I have also worked for The Cumorah Foundation since 2009 providing research assistance and resource development on LDS growth and missionary work. Since this time I have been interviewed by various media organizations and have co-authored with David Stewart our comprehensive work Reaching the Nations: International Church Growth Almanac: 2014 Edition. I have a masters degree in psychology and a doctorate degree in clinical psychology.